London Borough of Lambeth (202431053)

Background

1. The resident lived in the 2-bedroom flat with her 4 children. She reported ongoing problems with the wet room, including flooding and periods where she said she could not use the shower. The resident raised a complaint due to the length of time taken to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords:

1. Handling of the repairs to the wet room.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:

1. Maladministration in its handling of the repairs to the wet room.
2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Wet room repairs

4. The landlord delayed in completing works, missed multiple appointments and failed to consider the ongoing impact caused to the resident in the recurring issues with her wet room.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not comply with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not look at.

6. The resident has told us that the ongoing issues impacted her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.

What we have looked at.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to an emergency repair within 1 working day and routine repairs within 7 to 28 working days depending on the type of repair. Examples of a routine repair that it will attend to within 7 working days are a blocked basin, sink or bath or a leaking bath.
8. The landlord raised a repair job on 22 July 2024 for the wet room drainage pump and recorded it needed both plumbing and electrical attendance. It raised this with a 7 working day response time. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord attended, however, it re-raised the job on 29 July 2024 with the same timeframe, which suggests it had not at that stage attended.
9. The evidence shows that despite raising further work orders on 2 and 29 August 2024, it did not attend the property until 5 September 2024; 26 working days outside of its published timescales. This was inappropriate as during that time the resident was left without a working shower.
10. Furthermore, the resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2024 and explained that the shower was completely unusable, there were 4 teenagers in the house, and it was causing them major problems. However, we cannot see that the landlord responded the resident’s concerns. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered if it needed to provide any temporary solutions to the resident, while awaiting a repair.
11. In its stage 1 response on 4 September 2024, the landlord explained that due to ongoing issues with its contractor, it had moved contractors. This was a reasonable step to take given the ongoing issues it was having with the original contractor.
12. The contractor attended on 5 September 2024 with further follow-on works completed on 6 September 2024. Unfortunately, these works did not resolve the issue and a plumber attended again on 19 September 2024, completed further works and marked the job as complete.
13. However, the resident continued to report the issue was ongoing. While the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they deem a repair to be resolved, given the repeated issues raised by the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to have arranged for a full inspection to be completed to ensure that it correctly identified the fault. Not doing so, caused the resident to spend further time reporting the issue and chasing the repair meanwhile living without a functioning shower.
14. In the stage 2 response on 4 December 2024, the landlord explained that further appointments were booked for 5 December and 9 December 2024 to investigate a leak and the continuing shower blockage. However, we understand from the evidence that these appointments did again not resolve the issue. The resident reported that the plumber who attended left without doing any work. The landlord has not provided a note from the contractor for this visit, but we cannot see that further follow on works were raised.
15. Furthermore, the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2024 to explain what had happened at the appointment, yet we cannot see that the landlord responded or sought to raise any further appointments following this. This is completely inappropriate and highlights a lack of effective system to track and monitor repairs.
16. A further appointment was arranged for 30 December 2024 where it was identified that a new transformer was needed. The evidence indicates that the issue was not resolved until 7 February 2025, 7 months after the resident had first reported the issue. While the landlord did attend during that period, it did not complete a meaningful and effective repair. It did not evidence that it considered the history of the repair or consider that it may have needed to complete a more in depth investigation to resolve the issue. We also cannot see that it ever gave consideration to the ongoing impact on the family or that it offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with its compensation policy.

17. The landlord has a 2 complaints procedure. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 workings. The Code sets out that both the complaint and escalate request must be acknowledged within 5 working days.
18. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2024; the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and responded 18 days outside of the published timescale.
19. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 September 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the request and responded on 4 December 2024, 37 working days outside of the published timescale.
20. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay at either stage.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records in this case were not clear. It was not always evident what works had been completed and when. Its lack of effective records contributed to the delays in this case and it could consider the recommendations set out in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

22. The landlord did not demonstrate good communication in this case. The resident spent considerable time chasing the landlord for updates and also experienced multiple missed appointments. It also did not demonstrate effective communication with its contractors which caused multiple delays.